Am I overreacting?

[spartan231490]

Hi guys,

So basically it was recently my nephew's 11th birthday and I was browsing the pictures my sister posted on Facebook of him opening his presents that morning. He's really into gaming at the moment, so he was gifted with a couple for his Xbox 360. One of the choices?

Grand Theft Auto V. A couple of things sprung to mind when I saw my nephew holding the box - namely the torture segment which you have actively play through in the single player campaign and the lap dance minigame. And of course, the usual content you would expect from a Grand Theft Auto title. I found myself feeling very troubled at the idea of him playing it.

I expressed my concern to my sister who in turn gave the whole "I know exactly what's in the game and I'm happy for him to play it, all his friends are playing". For one thing, I highly doubt my sister knows much about the content. Just last year she was asking my boyfriend about GTA:IV because my nephew wanted that one, and he advised her that it was probably unsuitable for a 10 year old (which he was at that time). The fact that she wasn't aware of the sort of content that's in a well known franchise like Grand Theft Auto then doesn't inspire me with confidence that she knows more now.

Also, just because his friends are playing it shouldn't make it ok. You shouldn't be afraid to be the "bad guy" parent just because it will make you unpopular for a few days. But at the same time I know what it's like to want to join in on things with your friends and the likelihood is that he's begged her for the game simply because his friends have it.

So am I overreacting? I probably wouldn't have batted an eye if he was mid teens (depending on his mental maturity), but ELEVEN? It just seems so young for a game like that. At the end of the day, she's his mother and (apparently) knows what's best but I couldn't see myself giving a child of mine a game I know is full of strong adult content when they're not even a teenager yet.

(I'd like to point out that I'm in no way bashing GTA:V. Both me and my boyfriend have played it extensively and enjoyed it a lot - but we're both 21. It's an 18 certification (in the UK) for a very good reason in my opinion)

TLDR: My sister bought my 11 year old nephew GTA:V for his birthday and I think it's unsuitable for someone that young. Thoughts?

If all you did was express your concern then of course you didn't go too far. I did the same thing to my sister when my nephew asked for GTA(though he is much younger than 11. He just thinks it's a racing game).

That said, I was playing M rated games and watching R rated movies when I was 11, and I turned out fine. I was a rather mature young man though.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Should an 11 year old be allowed to play GTA 5? probably not but its not your kid so its not your call I guess.

One thing that is relevant though

Also, just because his friends are playing it shouldn't make it ok. You shouldn't be afraid to be the "bad guy" parent just because it will make you unpopular for a few days. But at the same time I know what it's like to want to join in on things with your friends and the likelihood is that he's begged her for the game simply because his friends have it.

The thing about this is if his friends have it there's a pretty good chance he's already played it. If she didn't buy him the game it wouldn't stop him from playing the game, he just wouldn't be able to play it conveniently. If he can play it whenever he wants he'll get bored of it and in a month or two it'll be nothing special. If he has to go to his friend's house to play it and then he cant have it himself then it would be a bigger deal to him than it probably would be otherwise. I pretty much was that kid when I was like 12 or something, and I pretty much thought the only things that made games or movies good or fun was blood gore guts and killing people, and put all these retrospectively shitty games on a pedestal just because I didn't get to play them enough to get tired of them.

 

[OneCatch]

TLDR: My sister bought my 11 year old nephew GTA:V for his birthday and I think it's unsuitable for someone that young. Thoughts?

So tell her explicitly what's in it. Mention the torture scenes, full frontal male nudity, hell, most of the worst stuff is on youtube.
On the other hand, at least GTA is openly satirical. I'd say COD is probably more crass and has the potential to do more harm because it actually takes itself seriously. Post COD4 anyway.
I don't overly worry about kids playing violent games (I was one after all), but it is a bit concerning that the most mainstream and influential military games fetishise real-world violence, torture, black ops, etc in such a way. I'd be happier with a kid playing almost anything other than COD - Gears of War, GTA, Spec Ops, Bioshock, FEAR, whatever.

It's the parent's choice in the end though - once you've expressed your opinion and informed them as much as you can, there's not much else you can or should do. And it would be rather unfair for her to take the game away from him once he's started playing anyway..

 

[bug_of_war]

snip

Well, to answer it bluntly no, it's not an over reaction.

HOWEVER, you should let go the feeling of being worried, your sibling has made the decision that the content is fine for their child to consume and that is their right to do so. We should never wrap kids up in 50 blankets shielding them from everything, we should offer them the proper answers to questions they pose and feed their thirst for knowledge. From my personal experience, at 12 years of age all males in my year level (year 7) had played Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, COD and Medal of Honor, and we all grew up fine. We would often be confused with a few things like, "what does ****** mean?" (born in Aus) "Why are they doing that?" "did this really happen" and we would all then go home and ask our parents and they would give us the meaning and the morality behind it all. From a very young age most kids know violence is bad, most kids either have an inkling about what sex is or a very decent understanding, and sometimes seeing something that you don't understand is a good thing. It forces you to find an answer to a question, and the quicker that you learn both the answer and the morality surrounding the topic in that situation, the quicker one will develop into a well adjusted person.

Violent media only causes damage when parents neglect to raise their children.

 

[Something Amyss]

H
I expressed my concern to my sister who in turn gave the whole "I know exactly what's in the game and I'm happy for him to play it, all his friends are playing". For one thing, I highly doubt my sister knows much about the content.

So make her aware. Tell her about the graphic torture scene. That seems to be the big deal breaker for most people.

So am I overreacting?

Not from what you've mentioned.

10$ says that you're nephew plays the game, enjoys it and DOES NOT go on a murder spree ( which i think you are implying may happen).

Or, you know, that the kid might be disturbed or something. I think you're assuming an awful lot out of convenience.

The good ol' "lets take a part of his post out to misrepresent his point".

It's not really misrepresented. The second part wasn't really relevant to the idea. But since we're going there, a parent thinking their kid can handle it because of lack of information is in no way indicative of either an informed decision or the capacity of the kid. It seems people are assuming that the parents are informed and knowledgeable about their kid despite the only info we have saying otherwise. Now, it's possible Jessabi isn't telling the truth (not saying she is), but we have absolutely no information to support that stance.

Well cigarettes are proven to damage your health nowadays they should have kept em like they were back in the old days when they were good for you. Inappropriate content (as pertaining to films and games) is much harder to judge.

The problem is, the argument isn't any better just because it's a blurrier line. The "I did it and I'm fine" argument is inane to begin with. Nobody's saying games are as bad as cigarettes, or even that they're bad (on here, anyway--apparently, video games are worse than guns, porn and pot in the eyes of some). The point is about the failure of the reasoning.

Everyone knew those were just games + movies not reality. But nowadays the whole "videogame" blaming even shows it's sign within the community.

No, it's not a "nowaday" thing. Games were blamed back in the 80s and 90s, and movies were a hot topic issue. Moreso than today.

 

[JayRPG]

An 11 year old is never going to make it to the lapdance mini game or horrific torture scenes... he's 11.

When I was 11 I got stuck roaming hopelessly in the world map of FF9 trying to find a place that I could have found if I had quite simply just walked forward for about 15 seconds.

Him and all his friends are putting the disc in, running around aimlessly stealing cars and running people over and they think they are playing GTA V and furthermore think that that they are having fun, too much fun to try anything other than what they are doing.

They are skipping every cut scene because what kind of kid wants to watch some boring foreigners talk for 5 minutes?

I don't think you or anyone else has anything to worry about, it'd be far worse if the kid was watching an adult play rather than playing the game himself - if he were watching an adult play he would actually see some of the more objectionable material that'll be far too hard for him to get to for reasons like attention span, focus, comprehension and ability.

 

[The Madman]

that is incredible speculation and quite condescending. Not only am I the oldest of all my siblings and cousins (a.k.a. the go to babysitter in any situation) I've had 2 official jobs that revolved around molding children for a total of 2-1/2 years on top of that.

I didn't exactly appreciate being talked down to like I'm some sort of Monty Burns esq old man unaware those damned rapscallions could be doing something illicit at school either.

But it seems to me that we just disagree about age and maturity. I don't think an 11 year old is old enough to properly process some of the things they'll see in games and movies. Will they see it anyway? Possibly. But there's a big difference between something they played a bit at a friends place and something they've put hours and hours into at home with their parents complicit approval. I'd also argue there's a pretty big difference between a cartoon squirrel that says naughty words and makes poop jokes to a scene in which the player is expected to deliberately and graphically torture someone.

One is about on par with Ren & Stimpy, the other is stuff I as an adult can have trouble with. At around 11 years old these kids probably haven't even hit puberty yet, they simply aren't old enough to be able to understand the implications of what they're seeing on screen. 15ish? Sure, if the kid seems smart I don't see why not. But for something as violent as the new GTA I can't in good conscience condone a child that young playing it, regardless of their comparative maturity.

Kids will be kids. They'll explore, they'll try new things and they'll do things they shouldn't, that's part of growing up. Meanwhile I'm of the apparently old fashioned belief that it's a parents responsibility to set guidelines and boundaries and if necessary to provide a safe haven away from any negative influences. Will children test those boundaries? Of course, but that doesn't mean you open the gates and just let em loose.

 

[fenrizz]

So tell her explicitly what's in it. Mention the torture scenes, full frontal male nudity, hell, most of the worst stuff is on youtube.

(emphasis mine)

Now what is wrong with that exactly?
Seems a lot of people have some sort of problem with it.

There is nothing sexual about it, it's not even erect!
It boggles my mind.

 

[OneCatch]

So tell her explicitly what's in it. Mention the torture scenes, full frontal male nudity, hell, most of the worst stuff is on youtube.

(emphasis mine)

Now what is wrong with that exactly?
Seems a lot of people have some sort of problem with it.

There is nothing sexual about it, it's not even erect!
It boggles my mind.

Oh trust me, I'm not prudish. I still play Morrowind with the full body mods. I think the US ratings system is absurd in the way it places more emphasis on entirely natural sexual content than rather unnatural violence.
I'm all for equal opportunities nudity!

But nonetheless, people do tend to fixate upon it as the bad thing to end all bad things, so if the OP wants to encourage a relative to be more discerning about her gifts, that's a quick and messy way to do it.

 

[Maximum Bert]

*snip*
The problem is, the argument isn't any better just because it's a blurrier line. The "I did it and I'm fine" argument is inane to begin with. Nobody's saying games are as bad as cigarettes, or even that they're bad (on here, anyway--apparently, video games are worse than guns, porn and pot in the eyes of some). The point is about the failure of the reasoning.

Well I would say the argument is better if there is a blurry line because then people are open to discussion and argument just because there is an arbitrary ruling that 18 rated material is unsuitable for those under 18 dosent mean that it is actually unsuitable except in the eyes of the law which is just a system.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest cigarettes are bad for your health, guns kill people (well people kill people but guns make it a lot easier). The I did it and im fine argument isnt really an argument its a statement you could play Russian roulette and be fine dosent make it any less dangerous but at the same time you wouldnt be wrong if you really did do it and were fine, saying I did it and was fine so you will be too is another thing entirely though and I think the problem is that people are implying that is indeed the case so yes in that case the reasoning is faulty but so is assuming that they wont be.

People take risks everyday is watching / playing something 18 rated when you are underage a huge risk to your development, health etc? people do silly things everyday no one bats an eyelid maybe the kid gets a bit scared but I doubt it I really cant see the violence in GTA shocking anybody its more funny than graphic and scary its to far removed from real life imo and as for the sex at 11 I think if anything they will find it comical (which I think a lot of over 18s do when playing GTA anyway).

The OP voiced their concerns and gave reasoning which is fine and definitely not overreacting going OMG no they should not be playing it is playing a touch to the more hysterical side. If it does effect them badly later on I would argue that they are on the impressionable side and would be effected by such material regardless of age anyway.

Oh and btw im not condoning letting children under 18 play 18 rated games but neither am I condemning it I just dont think a blanket ruling can cover every situation here and it should be handled on a case by case basis and if its wrong then I dont think the consequences will be too severe anyway in this case and next time a better decision can be made.

 

[McElroy]

You see talk about this every once in a while. Not too long ago someone proposed making it a criminal offense to cheat on age ratings (didn't net much cheers, unsurprisingly). Teachers and the like are not concerned over 16-year-olds playing Mass Effect; it's the 10- and 11-year-olds telling GTA V is their favourite game of the season.

Yeah, not an overreaction. Sure, the kid won't become a killer or freak out or anything, and he'll play and see all kinds of things eventually anyway (fun fact: movies rated PG-13 have more violence in them than movies rated R, not as intense stuff but more destruction, beating, and shooting anyway), but there's a 99.99% chance he'll be exposed to lots of material he has no way of understanding, and that will affect the guy in one way or another. There's no easy answer to how long should one let kids be kids - unless one goes with "puberty".

 

[Savagezion]

Sorry but it is really not hard to know what a lapdance is with 11. Unless you live in an Amish household of course. Torture is in the same boat. Both are prevelant through media everywhere. Unless you put blinders on your child and dictate literally every step of his life I guarantee he will know of those things.

Blinders make a horse not get distracted. That's the sole reason they exist. Yes, I will put blinders on a kid to guide them. It isn't hard to not let an 11 year old know about torture. There is TONS of media without it in it. And he/she knows very little of the world. If my kid hears it from the park or something they are gonna ask me about it later being curious. I will tell him, I will not let him torture someone in GTA5. If I tell him about torture, the subject is dropped and life goes on. I let him play the game and now he has that experience swimming around in his head. Mob mentality isn't going to have me shove that experience at my 11 year old. He can go kill dragons in Skyrim in HD on the PC instead.

Like me, you probably had loose structure growing up. Because I totally agree it isn't hard to find out if you are allowed to seek. I was allowed to get into pretty much anything I wanted to so long as my grandparents weren't around. They were my primary source of structure and they were around maybe 20 hours of the week. I got about another 40 hours or so from my mom but it was weaker. Grandpa was Army and my mom grew up on the barracks and was still rebelling against structure I think when I was little.


EDIT: I would not say "I turned out fine". I could be much better off if I had the proper structure to learn the world with. Did I survive? Yeah. Did it make me stronger? That is debatable as hell. There were MANY drawbacks.

And in the context of a game: Yes, it is that fucking easy. It is just fiction. Puppets playing with other puppets.

So you have no problem with a kid playing an AO game right? It's just puppets playing with other puppets. As BakedSardine pointed out compare it to porn and say your OK with it if fiction vs. fantasy is truly what you believe. I am not going to expose a pre-puberty kid to porn deliberately. Especially, not just because his friends are doing it. A "realistic fantasy" is not the same as killing dragons.

Sure, and now school shootings happen because some dude played CS once.

No, every one of those kids comes from a home with little or no structure. They all got to sit in their room and fester on a plan for shit's sake. You know the place where they tend to find their video games AND their plans. That place is usually a cubby the kid would hide in and no adult succeeded in having him come out when you could just make him.

And no, the games don't influence their perception of reality unless they already have mental issues.

My perception of relaity is based on experience, as is yours. Kids have very little of that even at 11. They have no frame of reference only what they have heard and the little they have experienced. You got 11 years to learn the world, go. Good job, you did it! lol. Yeah right. GTA is going to add that experience just like any other media with the subject.

This kid is uncomfortable with the gun and clearly has some kind of perspective on reality that has him show respect to guns. You can't prove that it is directly because of video games. A kid that has only played Mario can easily exhibit the same respect the first time firing a rifle. I never claimed video games will make you homicidal. The press did that on behalf of parents everywhere. It isn't bad to control the media your kids consume. There is bad media for both kids and parents for different reasons. I love Penn and Teller. It isn't about having the kid flip out. It's not even about sex and violence, directly. It's about allowing what goes into his/her mind and when.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

How mature is the 11 year old? Because as much as we'd like to think children are all little shitheads that are just clamoring for guns to blow their friends head off with, a few have the common sense to discern fact from satirical fiction.

Should've recommended Spec Ops: the Line.

 

[BlackJimmy]

Post your sister a video of the torure mission while explaining that it's not a cutscene. Perhaps give her some context to the scene as well, such as Mr K is just a guy off the street.

EDIT: No, you aren't overreacting.

 

[Padwolf]

I don't think you are overreacting, I think you are just concerned and really you do have a valid reason to be concerned. However kids react to things differently. I remember playing GTA, Resident Evil, Silent Hill 1, Nightmare Creatures (Shut up, it was scary!) when I was under the age of 10. I turned out just fine. My brother, who was only 3 years older, also turned out just fine. We knew what we were seeing and doing were things that were not ok in real life, and we were constantly reminded by our parents that is was wrong and we should never imitate it. The only good thing about it was, because we had those games, we didn't constantly want violence or action. Hell, many more good days were passed on games like Hercules on the PS1, or driving games since my brother had this really awesome steering wheel. But, those were the days of PS1, where we weren't playing a torture scene. Nowadays me and my brother play other games, he is more into strategy games, I'm just into anything and everything. We turned out fine, if anything it just made us all the more disgusted with the bad people in the world.

However, telling kids they can't have these things when they see their friends having it, can bring out the "Because I can't have it, I want it" in them. But it depends on the kid, my boyfriend's 11 year old nephew isn't allowed to play GTA 5 but his friends do. He accepts why he can't play it, and understands why and never questions his mother about it and he's quite a mature kid, but he does want violent games and films because he isn't allowed them. They all react differently. If anything, show your sister the really bad parts of GTA5, just to make sure she understands.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

...you are overreacting!

Let me put this as simply as i can...it's fiction. If you haven't taught your child the difference between fiction and reality then you are not a good parent. That isn't a statement about you but a statement to everyone who has children. Blaming real life violence on fictional violence is just an attempt to pass the blame of poor parenting onto someone else. Hiding children from fictional violence just makes real life violence far more traumatic...and let's face it, everyone ends up with real life violence at some point. If you haven't prepared your children for the real world then you are a fucking failure of a parent and should start pointing the finger at yourself rather than trying to blame everyone and everything else.

Hope that leaves no room for misinterpretation

If fiction is your barometer for allowing an 11-year old to see content that is clearly inappropriate, at what point do you think it's OK to let your kids watch porn?

"Oh, hey son, just watching a little fiction I see. Dinner is at 5."

I'm not saying that GTAV is comparable to porn, but it is clearly not age appropriate for an 11 year-old. I think there are varying degrees of what an M rated game means and who it's appropriate for. My oldest is 9 and I'd never let them play something like GTA V until they're at least 14, but there are probably certain games like zombie killing games that I might be more lax on. As a parent, I see a big difference between bloodying up the screen with zombies versus having my kid go into a virtual strip club, making it rain and/or performing fictionalized torture on someone.

Not all M rated games are inappropriate for tweens, but GTA V probably is. I think once your kids hit high school (age 14), if you think they're responsible, you can take the reins off a bit.

Porn isn't fiction, it's sensationalised reality (unless you've had porn-like encounters).

You choose to ignore the brutally violent zombie mashing of some games over minor sexual encounters in another game...i find that strange. Is smashing someone in the head with a brick and then dismembering their bodies for kicks somehow less worrying than the normal activity of sex required for our survival as a species? One being a crime in all situations...the other is what literally billions of people do fairly regularly...

I would also point your attention to books. I've read books with no age warnings, no language warnings, no warnings at all that have graphic sex, rape, torture and mutilation. Do you think that blindly acting out some actions on a screen by pressing a few buttons is more damaging than allowing a young mind to ponder the actions of say a serial killer necrophilliac with a penchant for torture?

 

[BakedSardine]

Porn isn't fiction, it's sensationalised reality (unless you've had porn-like encounters).

You choose to ignore the brutally violent zombie mashing of some games over minor sexual encounters in another game...i find that strange. Is smashing someone in the head with a brick and then dismembering their bodies for kicks somehow less worrying than the normal activity of sex required for our survival as a species? One being a crime in all situations...the other is what literally billions of people do fairly regularly...

When killing zombies is a crime, let me know. It's a clear line between reality and fantasy. If you consider porn sensationalized reality, then consider my argument video game characters having explicit sex or some hentai.

I would also point your attention to books. I've read books with no age warnings, no language warnings, no warnings at all that have graphic sex, rape, torture and mutilation. Do you think that blindly acting out some actions on a screen by pressing a few buttons is more damaging than allowing a young mind to ponder the actions of say a serial killer necrophilliac with a penchant for torture?

I wound't let my kids read a book with a serial killer necrophiliac until it was age appropriate, so it's not an issue for me. I believe "it's fiction so it shouldn't matter how old they are" was your argument.

 

[jamail77]

snip

snip

I was kidding.

I know I didn't add a '', but I thought it would speak for itself.

Actually, that's kind of obvious in retrospect. I also use "..." and the kind of phrasing you did to make jokes online. Those kind of jokes are more easily picked up on in text. See, I don't buy the lame excuse that humor is hard to detect on the Internet especially through text. It can be conveyed through text if you inject the right phrasing and emphasis and trigger words. Sometimes it is hard to tell of course in certain situations and understanding varies among person to person, but I think some people just overuse the excuse when they need a scapegoat for not realizing obvious humor. Anyway, to get off the rant I might have entered, I just wasn't paying attention. It did speak for itself. Whoops.

Yeah, people on this forum just don't get humour. I try it all the time and it literally never works out.

People tend to hide behind the "text based medium is difficult to understand tone", but I genuinely just think some people are wilfully ignorant on this forum (as well as the wider internet - just look at any joke picture on Facebook, it's like a mega-line up of fucking morons with sense of humour failures.

S'pose what I'm trying to say is: I feel for you getting an obvious joke misunderstood. Happens a lot on this forum.

-_-

I am making this same point in my response to Casual Shinji and yet this refers to me. Oh, the irony. I also have had obvious jokes misunderstood, but unlike you I'm not a jerk about people not getting it (when you say stuff like "morons" and "humor failure", you're just being really disrespectful). I actually don't let it get to me and/or understand context of the people not getting it especially if I'm chatting online with friends I know in real life. You see, it's because I have also misunderstood obvious jokes (See this very thread) that I get why so many other people can do it from time to time.

In this case, I was very sleep deprived and sleep loss affects me FAR worse than other people. I have been told I am a completely different person to the point of appearing to have psychological issues and just a severe decrease in emotional endurance and logical understanding. It's very obvious now that I'm well rested. This probably sounds like complicated BS rambling to get out of admitting to my failure, but I assure you sleep really affects me weirdly. Trust me, I don't want to go too far into my sleep problems, not just because they're personal but also because they're complicated. Just making a point about the context here.

What I'm trying to say is don't just assume and insult a whole ton of people like that. I also used to complain about people hiding behind the "text based medium is difficult to understand tone" thing and I still do, but I don't assume it's because they're less intelligent like the old, far more disrespectful me would have. Part of that has to do with me making fun of a friend who didn't pick up on it who called me out on it. He proceeded to cite an example of me missing one of his obvious jokes and then a time before that when he got an obvious joke when others didn't. It was an "everyone can do it" sort of point. The other part just has to do with me maturing and learning and thinking more about context and interaction.

I'm going to stop now because I'm turning this too much into a anthropological/psychological/sociological/maturing discussion and it was just a simple thing about missing obvious jokes. I have a tendency to turn small things into bigger discussions.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I'd think it was ok if they were 16/17 maybe but 11? Hell no, that's crappy parenting.
Every time I go to GAME I see parents buying their 10YO kids games like GTA, CoD, Battlefield and other games which they really shouldn't be playing at such a young age. It annoys me.

 

[jamail77]

Can I ask why COD is different? I know it doesn't have the crime aspect, but it's pretty violent (well it is warfare). Isn't the patriotism ratchet-o-meter and indiference to killing enemy combatants still troubling?
Nevermind the kids on voice chat giving grief... shudder.

I figured someone would ask that. I suppose it goes to how I perceive the world and the way I grew up:

Playing 'soldiers' is, as far as I'm concerned, a normal part of childhood, and in the modern age of technology that extends to Call of Duty - all you're doing is playing 'soldiers', really. The violence is pretty cartoonish and over-the-top, there's nothing particularly gritty or grim about the way it's presented (despite what some people think).

I had to stop at that point to ponder this. I've heard this point before and it doesn't seem well founded...like, at all. Yes, I understand it's perspective and opinion, but still. I agree the violence gets a little over the top and they do and say things that definitely wouldn't be done in a similar military situation (or as close as you can get to what happens in COD games). But, cartoonish? I played COD 4 on the Wii (I wanted a PS3, but my sister thought we should all pool our money together and get the cheapest one at the time because we don't have much disposable income) and still remember that nuke scene, in which I think your character died. That was not cartoonish at all. I've played snippets of the first 3 CODs as well.

I mean, unless you mean cartoonish in where they decide to stab or how unbelievable/cartoonish their screams of pain sound or reactionary phrases to attacks and defenses are or just in the fact that, as you say, there are far grittier and grimmer environments (physical game world and psychological influence), I'm not sure I get ya'. Again, that nuke scene is still remembered pretty vividly by gamers, COD fans or not, isn't it? It wasn't that grim or gritty, but it was a serious depiction and I really felt it, it's the only time any CODs I've played actually made me feel something. I started out the way I did in this paragraph to avoid my earlier mistake of missing on that The Last of Us sarcasm from Casual Shinji, which not to belabor a point was mostly because I was dead tired and have far less thinking capability when dead tired.

Anyway, when I think cartoonish violence I think art style, actions, phrases, and charm of games like Team Fortress 2, Borderlands, stuff like that. I can only assume you mean a different type of cartoonish or that you have far lower standards than me on what constitutes cartoonish violence. If this is relative to other violent games, that's not a good argument for cartoonish: That's just relatively relaxed in its violence. Obviously, GTA is far worse in its depiction, blood is far more likely to show from smaller attacks, you can drive incredibly fast and kill hundreds of people (or at least seriously injure them) instantly giving both the adrenaline rush from speeding and the high body count and chaos GTA is known for without even needing to drive already, and THEN comes the messed up stuff, the kind even the game will admit is messed up in a weak, "eh" sort of way. While GTA doesn't take itself seriously, I do agree the violence depiction is pretty serious, context or not. COD, while being less violent overall, DOES take itself seriously. I've never seen a COD that didn't take itself seriously. GTA is worse, but COD isn't better just because it's less violent. It makes up for it by being more serious.